Search

Background: Colorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death in North America. Fluorouracil and oxaliplatin based adjuvant chemotherapy for resected colon cancer (CC) reduces cancer recurrence, but also causes significant toxicity requiring dose reductions. The effect of dose intensity on survival outcomes is not fully understood and strengthening the evidence supports informed decision making between patients and oncologists.Methods: Patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, between 2006 and 2011, for resected colon cancer at four Canadian academic cancer centers were retrospectively analyzed. All patients must have received oxaliplatin with either capecitabine (CAPOX) or 5-FU (FOLFOX). Dose intensity (DI) was calculated as total delivered dose of an individual chemotherapy agent divided by the cumulative intended dose of that agent. The influence of DI on overall survival was examined.Results: Five hundred thirty-one patients with high-risk stage II or stage III resected CC were eligible and included in the analysis. FOLFOX was the most common regimen (69.6%) with 29.7% of patients receiving CAPOX and 0.7% receiving both therapies. Median follow-up was 36.7 months. The median DI for 5-FU and capecitabine was 100% and 100% with 13.6% and 9.8% of patients receiving ≤ 80% DI, respectively. The median DI of oxaliplatin was 70% with 56.8% of patients receiving ≤ 80% DI. A DI of > 80% for each chemotherapy component was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival compared to those with a DI of ≤ 80% (5-FU HR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.08-0.65, p = 0.006; capecitabine HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.33-0.94, p = 0.026; oxaliplatin HR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.33-0.82, p = 0.005). Patients with T2 and/or N2 disease with an oxaliplatin DI > 80% had a trend towards improved survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.38-1.02, p = 0.06).Conclusions: In resected CC an adjuvant chemotherapy DI of > 80%, of each chemotherapy agent, is associated with improved overall survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Wee1 (WEE1hu) inhibitor adavosertib and gemcitabine have shown preclinical synergy and promising activity in early phase clinical trials. We aimed to determine the efficacy of this combination in patients with ovarian cancer.Methods: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, women with measurable recurrent platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer were recruited from 11 academic centres in the USA and Canada. Women were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, a life expectancy of more than 3 months, and normal organ and marrow function. Women with ovarian cancer of non-high-grade serous histology were eligible for enrolment in a non-randomised exploratory cohort. Eligible participants with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were randomly assigned (2:1), using block randomisation (block size of three and six) and no stratification, to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15) with either oral adavosertib (175 mg) or identical placebo once daily on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients and the team caring for each patient were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The safety and efficacy analysis population comprised all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02151292, and is closed to accrual.Findings: Between Sept 22, 2014, and May 30, 2018, 124 women were enrolled, of whom 99 had high-grade serous ovarian cancer and were randomly assigned to adavosertib plus gemcitabine (65 [66%]) or placebo plus gemcitabine (34 [34%]). 25 women with non-high-grade serous ovarian cancer were enrolled in the exploratory cohort. After randomisation, five patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were found to be ineligible (four in the experimental group and one in the control group) and did not receive treatment. Median age for all treated patients (n=119) was 62 years (IQR 54-67). Progression-free survival was longer with adavosertib plus gemcitabine (median 4·6 months [95% CI 3·6-6·4] with adavosertib plus gemcitabine vs 3·0 months [1·8-3·8] with placebo plus gemcitabine; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·35-0·90]; log-rank p=0·015). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were haematological (neutropenia in 38 [62%] of 61 participants in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs ten [30%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group; thrombocytopenia in 19 [31%] of 61 in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs two [6%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group). There were no treatment-related deaths; two patients (one in each group in the high-grade serous ovarian cancer cohort) died while on study medication (from sepsis in the experimental group and from disease progression in the control group).Interpretation: The observed clinical efficacy of a Wee1 inhibitor combined with gemcitabine supports ongoing assessment of DNA damage response drugs in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, a TP53-mutated tumour type with high replication stress. This therapeutic approach might be applicable to other tumour types with high replication stress; larger confirmatory studies are required.Funding: US National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, US Department of Defense, Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, and AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 (C19) pandemic introduced challenges in all areas of the Canadian healthcare system. Along with adaptations to clinical care environments, there was increasing concern about physician burnout during this time. The Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists (CAMO) has examined the effects of the pandemic on the medical oncology (MO) workforce. A series of four multiple choice web-based surveys distributed to MOs who were identified using the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons directory and CAMO membership in May 2020 (S1), July 2020 (S2), December 2020 (S3), and March 2022 (S4). Descriptive analyses were performed for each survey, and a Chi-square test (α = 0.05) was used to assess factors associated with planned change in practice in S4. The majority of respondents work in a comprehensive cancer center S1/S2/S3/S4 (87%/86%81%/88%) and have been in practice >10 years (56%/61%/50%/64%). The most commonly reported personal challenges were physical (60%) and mental (60%) wellness. In S4, 47% of MOs reported dissatisfaction with their current work-life balance. In total, 83% reported that their workload has increased since the beginning of C19, and 51% of MOs reported their future career plans have been impacted by C19. In total, 56% of respondents are considering retiring or reducing total working hours in the next 5 years. Since the onset of the C19 pandemic, there are concerns identified with wellness, increasing workload, and job dissatisfaction among MOs, associated with experienced staff who have >10 years in practice. As rates of cancer prevalence rise and treatments become more complex, it is crucial to address the concerns raised in these surveys to ensure that we have a stable MO workforce in the future.

Consensus guidelines exist for genotype-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing based on variation in the gene dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD). However, these guidelines have not been widely implemented in North America and most studies of pretreatment DPYD screening have been conducted in Europe. Given regional differences in treatment practices and rates of adverse events (AEs), we investigated the impact of pretreatment DPYD genotyping on AEs in a Canadian context. Patients referred for DPYD genotyping prior to fluoropyrimidine treatment were enrolled from December 2013 through November 2019 and followed until completion of fluoropyrimidine treatment. Patients were genotyped for DPYD c.1905+1G>A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, and c.1236G>A. Genotype-guided dosing recommendations were informed by Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced a severe fluoropyrimidine-related AE (grade ≥3, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0). Secondary outcomes included early severe AEs, severe AEs by toxicity category, discontinuation of fluoropyrimidine treatment due to AEs, and fluoropyrimidine-related death. Among 1394 patients, mean (SD) age was 64 (12) years, 764 (54.8%) were men, and 47 (3.4%) were DPYD variant carriers treated with dose reduction. Eleven variant carriers (23%) and 418 (31.0%) noncarriers experienced a severe fluoropyrimidine-related AE (p = 0.265). Six carriers (15%) and 284 noncarriers (21.1%) experienced early severe fluoropyrimidine-related AEs (p = 0.167). DPYD variant carriers treated with genotype-guided dosing did not experience an increased risk for severe AEs. Our data support a role for DPYD genotyping in the use of fluoropyrimidines in North America., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: Oncolytic reovirus pelareorep might preferentially infect and destroy rat sarcoma (RAS)-activated cells, and has preclinical and early clinical activity against colorectal cancer (CRC)., Patients and Methods: After a 6-patient safety run-in, 103 patients with metastatic CRC were randomly assigned to standard first-line leucovorin/5-FU/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX6)/bevacizumab (FOLFOX/BEV) every 2 weeks with (n = 51) or without (n = 52) pelareorep 3 × 10 10 tissue culture infective dose 50 on days 1 to 5 (cycles 1, 2, 4, and alternate cycles thereafter). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and correlative analyses., Results: At 13 months' median follow-up, PFS was inferior in the pelareorep arm (median 7 vs. 9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.59 [80% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-2.15]; P = .046). There was no statistical difference in OS (median, 19.2 vs. 20.1 months; HR, 1.22; P = .38). An increased ORR was observed with pelareorep (adjusted odds ratio, 2.52 [80% CI, 1.44-4.41]; P = .03), but with a shorter median duration of response (5 vs. 9 months; P = .028). Pelareorep patients experienced more hypertension and proteinuria, and were more likely to omit bevacizumab before progression. A trend to lower dose intensity and shorter oxaliplatin and bevacizumab treatment duration was observed with pelareorep., Conclusion: Combination pelareorep with FOLFOX/BEV was tolerable with an increased ORR, but PFS was inferior. Subgroup analysis of baseline variables including Kirsten rat sarcoma oncogene did not identify subgroups with PFS benefit. Decreased treatment intensity with standard agents likely contributed to the lack of benefit with pelareorep. Future studies might consider alternate pelareorep/chemotherapy strategies or combination therapy with novel agents., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The drug approval timeline is a lengthy process that often varies between countries. The objective of this study was to delineate the Canadian drug approval timeline for oncology drugs and to compare the time to drug approval between Health Canada (HC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)., Methods: In total, 54 antineoplastic drugs that were approved by the FDA between 1989 and 2012 were reviewed. For each drug, the following milestones were determined: the dates of submission and approval for both the FDA and HC and the dates of availability on provincial drug formularies in Canadian provinces and territories. The time intervals between the aforementioned milestones were calculated., Results: Of 54 FDA-approved drugs, 49 drugs were approved by HC at the time of the current study. The median time from submission to approval was 9 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6-14.5 months) for the FDA and 12 months (IQR, 10-21.1 months) for HC (P < .0006). The time from HC approval to the placement of a drug on a provincial drug formulary was a median of 16.7 months (IQR, 5.9-27.2 months), and there was no interprovincial variability among the 5 Canadian provinces that were analyzed (P = .5)., Conclusions: The time from HC submission to HC approval takes 3 months longer than the same time interval for the FDA. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first documentation of the time required to bring an oncology drug from HC submission to placement on a provincial drug formulary., (© 2015 American Cancer Society.)